Gadgetory

welcome back to harbor unboxed ok so it's been a few weeks since I created any rising content on the channel and I've got to admit I've been exhibiting a few withdrawal symptoms so the time has come when I must once again make some kind of rise and related benchmark video so this one we're simply going to test the horizon 514 hundred head to head with their Aizen five sixteen hundred sounds pretty simple and well it is my day one rise in 5 coverage compared the 1500 X and 1600 X as these are the only models to get my hands on prior to release recently though I do compare the 1500 X and 1400 and they're out of the box form as well as a 4 gigahertz overclock at the time I noted it would have been very cool to compare the 1600 and 1400 head-to-head under the same conditions so I'm finally doing just that next week I do plan to add the horizon 7 1700 to the mix once I get a little bit more time anyway for this one we have the horizon 5 1400 versus 1600 quad versus hex 8 megabyte vs. 16 megabyte level 3 cache 170 dollars versus 220 dollars before we get to that a quick recap of what we've learnt so far when it comes to the cheaper quad core rise and 5 processes the 1400 and 1500 X are very similar in terms of price the 1400 is just $20 cheaper that said though it does have half as much level 3 cache on offer we found this can make quite a large difference to performance even for gaming however refused a mid-range graphics card or really anything less than a gtx 1080 then the cache capacity makes a little to no difference so under realistic conditions for these sub $200 CPUs the cache size doesn't make a big difference at least when gaming this then had me leaning towards the more affordable 1,400 after all when it comes to budget builds every dollar counts I also felt that if you are going to spend the extra $20 to get the 1500 X you might as well spend another $30 to get the 6 core 1600 it's not really a big leap speaking of the 1600 this is the golden ship of the entire rise and range in my opinion the 1600 X is essentially the same ship laksa cooler and cost 14% more so in my opinion aim D can keep that one the r5 1600 though really is AMD's gift to enthuse us particularly so for those guys that stuck with them even through the whole bulldozer debacle at $220 us even a month after release I still can't believe it costs just $220 us or $300 Australian anyway at that price at Polk's find it until 6:00 core 6800 K pokes the 7600 K in the eye and just body slams the 9k model so me it strikes the perfect balance of everything right now for gaming six cores with SMT support is perfect as much the same we're looking application performance as well quad cores are becoming a bit too lean while octo cause are still overkill for the most part that being said the 1600 does cost $50 us more than the 1400 but I was shocked to also find a $50 difference down under a straight currency conversion should see the 1600 cost around $70 more in ozland but that isn't the case 50 dollars Australian really isn't a huge amount of money for what we're talking about here as many of you know I have been a supporter of the horizon 5 1400 for the simple fact that 170 dollars that decimates the Intel competition wrecking the core i3 70 350 K a dual core that comes at the same price it also takes it to the core i5 range often beating the core i5 70 470 500 by handy merge and anyway we'll discuss the value of the r5 1400 a bit more in a moment for now let's jump to the benchmarks something interesting to note is that previously I wasn't able to run the 1400 with ddr4 3,200 memory this speed worked okay with the 1600 X but not the 1600 or 1400 I just assumed I was a bit unlucky here with these chips and they featured weaker memory controllers while having recently updated my asrock X 317 Taichi to the latest biased revision both the 1600 and 1400 now work perfectly with the XMP 3200 setting the 1600 is also hitting a memory bandwidth of almost thirty eight gigabytes per second now I'm yet to retest the Rison seven chips that I will do so shortly moving on we have the Cinebench r15 results here we see with the 1,400 and 1,600 matched at or gigahertz that the six core CPU is 55% faster not really a shocker though as it does have 50% more cores and that extra bit of performance likely comes from the larger l3 cache out of the box the 1600 was 65 percent faster thanks to a clock speed advantage if like Tim you love Microsoft Excel than the r5 1600 is the chip for you clock for clock at 4 gigahertz it was more than twice as fast as the 1400 a hundred and eight percent faster in fact the 1400 is still respectable on this test but if extreme workloads are your game and the 1600 is a must this will also be true for other applications that can utilize all six cores we find a similar story when testing 7-zip here the 1600 was 50% faster than the 1400 when comparing the two at 4 gigahertz out of the box the 1600 was 61% faster so in terms of value it's pretty amazing given early cost 30% more here we have a doe Premiere Pro CC and the r5 1400 does rather well in this test completing the workload in just 301 seconds once overclocked to 4 gigahertz this method 1600 was just 36% faster and while that is really a significant margin it's clearly not receiving the full benefit of having the additional 2 cores in this application using Adobe Premiere Pro CC to measure power consumption we see that the 1400 still consumes less than the 1600 even when overclocked total system consumption was increased by 19% though that said this was a good result for the 1400 as it provided 18% more performance in premiere once overclocked the gains were similar for the 1600 here it consumes 16% more power lines overclocked which is fair given we saw a 13% increase in performance with both the 1,400 and 1,600 overclocked to 4 gigahertz the beefier 6 cord ship push system consumption 21 percent higher please note for testing I've only used the GTX 1080 Ti but since we tested the 6 games I'm about to show you with the RX 480 in the previous Rison 5 video we know what the limits of this GPU are for example the RX 4 80 maxed out at 84 FPS on average in battle through one at 1080p using the same quality settings as a result of 1400 and 1500 X were GPU limited and produce the same performance therefore if you are running a 60 using the IR explore ad or rx5 ad graphics cards the performance in this title will be identical to that of the 1400 even the 1% in point 1 percent performance will be very similar however if we remove the GPU bottleneck or at least reduce its impact on the results by using the gtx 1080i the r5 1600 is able to stretch its legs a little more here we see the 4 gigahertz overclock leading to 22% better performance for the 1600 over the 1400 at the same frequency out of the box the 1600 was fast about even greater margin providing 29% more performance thanks to a clock speed advantage so if you have a higher-end GPU or play at lower quality settings to achieve higher frame rates then the 1600 will enable greater performance in this title previously we found the R X 480 limited performance in mafia 3 251 SPS on average with a point 1 percent time of 40 FPS as you can see the GTX 1080i pushes well past this but it again means even with the R 5 1400 you can get the most out of a mid-range graphics card here we see once both CPUs are overclocked to 4 gigahertz the 1600 still delivers 18% more performance reaching an average of 90 fps it was also 33% faster when comparing the 0.1% performance and 26% faster for the 1% result after the singularity escalation loves them cause so it's no surprise the 1600 pulls well ahead here clock for clock for 1600 was 30% faster than the 1400 and that's obviously a significant margin ashes the singularity is mostly a CPU bound game so you will see similar gains even with a mid-range GPU as a box the 1600 average 99 FPS to the 1481 fps making a 22% faster and hitman the margin was slightly reduced once overclocked the 1600 is now 19% faster it's interesting to note even with the 4 gigahertz overclock on all cores the 1400 can't beat the stock 1600 and this is something we've seen in every game tested so far overclocking the 1400 boosted Deus Ex mankind divided performance by 12% heading an average of 96 fps the same overclock only netted the 1600 a further 3 percent performance and it appears as though we are reaching the limits of the 1080i he this would certainly appear to be true given the 77 okay is also limited to around 110 fps under these same conditions anyway clock for clock at 4 gigahertz despite the GPU bottleneck the 1600 was still 16 percent faster than the 1400 wrapping up the benchmarks we have total war Warhammer here the 1600 was 24% faster than the 1400 with both CPUs overclocked meanwhile the stock frequencies at 1600 was 28% faster at least when comparing the average frame rate anyway alright so as usual the results have given us a few things to discuss firstly if application performance is vital then the r5 1600 makes sense over the 1400 as we did see strong gains in the few applications tested it's quite clear though if the program can utilize those extra two cores and the gains offered by the 1600 will be quite substantial Premiere Pro CC for example showed the weakest gains of the applications tested and yet it still offered a 36 percent performance bump given the 1600 costs just 30% more that makes it a better value option here for gamers though it's a little less clear which way you should go you can save money by getting the 1400 or you can spend a little bit more ensure maximum performance with the 1600 again the 1600 chip does cost 30% more but really it's only a $50 difference and that isn't a huge amount of money for what you're getting if we look at the 1% data which I feel is the more important metric for comparing CPU gaming performance actually this data is virtually identical to the minimum France the second result just slightly lower but whatever let's not get into that one here looking at the 1% results we found that the 1600 was faster by a 23% margin in battlefield 1 17% for Deus Ex 20% for hitman 26% for mafia 3 46% for total war and 29% faster and ashes of the singularity this means on average to 1600 was 27% faster in the games tested obviously the 1600 has a significant advantage over the 1,400 and CPU intensive games that use more than 4 cores that said if we were to test games such as for honor Far Cry primal or the division for example then you would likely see a little to no difference between the 1,400 and 1,600 processors as these games are primarily GPU base and using realistic quality settings there will also be minimal difference between the two when using a mid-range GPU targeting higher to ultra quality type settings still keeping all that in mind it's clear there isin five 1600 has more to offer gamers and as more demanding titles become available it will continue to outpace the 1400 in then when all said and done it really does just come down to $50 and when comparing these processes side-by-side that's a 30% cost increase however looking at it more realistically it's actually not nearly that much the cheapest be 350 boards for example start at $70 us and when factoring that into the equation that means that 1600 is now just 20% more expensive throw in 16 gigabytes of ddr4 memory and now the 1600 cost just 15% more you can see where this is going in the end once you factor in total system cost $50 could account for just a 5 percent price increase so looking at it that way the 1600 does seem like the obvious choice still there really are a heap of different ways you can look at this and everyone's situation is a bit different that said if you are building a new system from the ground up I suggest you cough up that extra cash for the 1600 those extra 2 cores will certainly come in handy now I'm keen to throw the horizon 7 1700 into this comparison probably next week and see if it's worth spending the extra cash or do reach a point of diminishing returns with the 8 core processor anyway that's going to do it for this one hopefully this helps those of you trying to decide between the four core and 6 cores and 5 models I'm your host Steve see you again soon guys you